By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What is your political ideology? (test included!)

 

What is your political ideology? (test included!)

Socially Left, Financiall... 35 29.41%
 
Socially Right, Financial... 19 15.97%
 
Socially Left, Financially Left (Liberal) 38 31.93%
 
Socially Right, Financially Left (Communist) 10 8.40%
 
Socially Moderate, Financ... 8 6.72%
 
Socially Moderate, Financ... 9 7.56%
 
Total:119
bdbdbd on 23 April 2010

-1,62
-3,64

With a little different type of questions the results had been different.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
rastari said:
There haven't been any communist leaders, There's no such thing as a communist leader. In a communist society everyone is equal and therefore no particular person leads.

That's not true... re-read your Marx and Engles.
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "everyone is equal" part doesn't come until generations under a brutal authortiarian dictatorship.  This is because.... according to them... it wouldn't work.  People aren't built for communism due to society.  They need to be broken down and changed until human culture itself is very different.

Which can't happen unless the world is under a brutal communist dictatorship.  Since otherwise, all the talented people will flee for communism.

It's all in the communist manifesto.  Stalin very much IS a communist leader.  He's the kind of communist leader "true" communism can't exist without... the "lower" level communist leader.

Wow. 

I knew most of that, but I didn't know about the part where they knew full well people would try to flee communist nations en masse. 

No wonder the USSR was so hot to get more revolutions going.  Their ideology REQUIRES world domination. 

Marx was a very smart man.  He knew it was more then just the bourgeoisie that was the problem, but society itself. 

Of course... one wonders if he would still feel the same way today.  It's a common sociological essay question... because Marx could of never forseen things such as unions, universal healthcare and various welfare systems being not only legal but widely accepted by the government.

Err, do you guys know what the proletariat is?  It's the working class.  Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat equates to mob rule (of the working class), not a dictatorship led by one person. 


The dicatorship of the proletariat was infact a military super authoritaran dicatorship.  Not mob rule.  It's clearly spelled out in Marx works.  Only later people have tried to classify it as anything else to make it fit within modern times.

They tried to tie it to the Paris Commune... which was a direct democracy.  Which would be the exact opposite of a dictatorship.  Something Marx was wel aware of.

He knew direct democracies couldn't work on a larger level... and that the communes couldn't be sustained beyond very small and weak levels.

I dunno, I read a good portion of the Communist Manifesto and saw nothing saying the dictatorship of the proletariat did not mean a dictatorship of the proletariat and instead meant dictatorship of a single person.  Wikipedia agrees with me calling it a "revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'."    Doesn't say anything about a single dictator, but does say something about a government with majority backing (a government backed by the masses?  sounds like mob rule to me).  By your logic, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would be a single dictator ruling over the bourgeoisie.  That makes no sense, as the types of government that communism is supposed to replace are numerous.  Dictatorship of the proletariat vs. dictatorship of the bourgeoisie simply refers to who dominates society.

Wikipedia would be one of those modern sources.  If you reread the communist manifesto... or maybe it was one of his letters... you'll see he says you have to put the people where they are best suited... regardless of their wishes.

A "dicatorship" like your talking about would NEVER work on the world level.  Which is the level it NEEDED to work.  Hence why they called for either simaltanious or successive communist revolutions.  It all needed to happen at once under 1 large communist dictatorship.

How is that possible... under direct democracy?   It's not possible now... let alone then.   Direct recall of world governments?  Heck you couldn't get direct recall in a government the size of france.

1) Unless I'm remembering wrong the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step between other forms of government and Communism.  It's not permanent.

2) How is mob rule equatable to democracy?  You have someone backed by the people shouting "Let's go do shit!" and peopled roaring in agreement.  That's not exactly democracy, and Communism itself certainly isn't.  Democracy /= everyone is equal under the law.

3) I'm not responsible for finding evidence to back up your claims.  That's your responsibility.  Find me a source where he talks about the need for a single dictator and I'll believe you.

1) It's not permanent but it needs to last for a LONG time.

2) The "mob rule" everyone equates it to is the French Commune. Which wasn't mob rule.  It was a direct democracy.

3) I'll pass.  I don't care enough about proving it to you to pour through the entirity of his works again.



Final-Fan on 23 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Err, do you guys know what the proletariat is?  It's the working class.  Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat equates to mob rule (of the working class), not a dictatorship led by one person. 

The dicatorship of the proletariat was infact a military super authoritaran dicatorship.  Not mob rule.  It's clearly spelled out in Marx works.  Only later people have tried to classify it as anything else to make it fit within modern times.

They tried to tie it to the Paris Commune... which was a direct democracy.  Which would be the exact opposite of a dictatorship.  Something Marx was wel aware of.

He knew direct democracies couldn't work on a larger level... and that the communes couldn't be sustained beyond very small and weak levels.

I dunno, I read a good portion of the Communist Manifesto and saw nothing saying the dictatorship of the proletariat did not mean a dictatorship of the proletariat and instead meant dictatorship of a single person.  Wikipedia agrees with me calling it a "revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'."    Doesn't say anything about a single dictator, but does say something about a government with majority backing (a government backed by the masses?  sounds like mob rule to me).  By your logic, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie would be a single dictator ruling over the bourgeoisie.  That makes no sense, as the types of government that communism is supposed to replace are numerous.  Dictatorship of the proletariat vs. dictatorship of the bourgeoisie simply refers to who dominates society.

Wikipedia would be one of those modern sources.  If you reread the communist manifesto... or maybe it was one of his letters... you'll see he says you have to put the people where they are best suited... regardless of their wishes.

A "dicatorship" like your talking about would NEVER work on the world level.  Which is the level it NEEDED to work.  Hence why they called for either simaltanious or successive communist revolutions.  It all needed to happen at once under 1 large communist dictatorship.

How is that possible... under direct democracy?   It's not possible now... let alone then.   Direct recall of world governments?  Heck you couldn't get direct recall in a government the size of france.

1) Unless I'm remembering wrong the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step between other forms of government and Communism.  It's not permanent.

2) How is mob rule equatable to democracy?  You have someone backed by the people shouting "Let's go do shit!" and peopled roaring in agreement.  That's not exactly democracy, and Communism itself certainly isn't.  Democracy /= everyone is equal under the law.

3) I'm not responsible for finding evidence to back up your claims.  That's your responsibility.  Find me a source where he talks about the need for a single dictator and I'll believe you.

1) It's not permanent but it needs to last for a LONG time.
2) The "mob rule" everyone equates it to is the French Commune. Which wasn't mob rule.  It was a direct democracy.
3) I'll pass.  I don't care enough about proving it to you to pour through the entirity of his works again.

Just in case this gets responded to:  please, I think we can do without SOME of the nested quotes. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

bdbdbd on 23 April 2010

@Tarheel: I'd like to point out that Marx critisised the french commune for wasting time in democracy, instead of taking direct action.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

tarheel91 on 23 April 2010
bdbdbd said:
@Tarheel: I'd like to point out that Marx critisised the french commune for wasting time in democracy, instead of taking direct action.

I'm not saying he advocated democracy.  Can y'all stop constructing strawman arguments?  Mob rule is anything but democracy.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
bdbdbd said:
@Tarheel: I'd like to point out that Marx critisised the french commune for wasting time in democracy, instead of taking direct action.

I'm not saying he advocated democracy.  Can y'all stop constructing strawman arguments?  Mob rule is anything but democracy.

It's not a strawman arguement.  You quoted wikipedia... Wikipedia (and Engles) called the Paris Commune the "Dictatorship of the proletariat"

That is the basis of what they consider Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat... despite the fact that he and Engles were very different.

It's not a strawman arguement... it's refuting your source.

Also, Stalin and Lenin's governments were not a dictatorship of one.  They were a dictatorship of one party.



tarheel91 on 23 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
 

1) Unless I'm remembering wrong the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step between other forms of government and Communism.  It's not permanent.

2) How is mob rule equatable to democracy?  You have someone backed by the people shouting "Let's go do shit!" and peopled roaring in agreement.  That's not exactly democracy, and Communism itself certainly isn't.  Democracy /= everyone is equal under the law.

3) I'm not responsible for finding evidence to back up your claims.  That's your responsibility.  Find me a source where he talks about the need for a single dictator and I'll believe you.

1) It's not permanent but it needs to last for a LONG time.

2) The "mob rule" everyone equates it to is the French Commune. Which wasn't mob rule.  It was a direct democracy.

3) I'll pass.  I don't care enough about proving it to you to pour through the entirity of his works again.

1) Again, I've never heard of this concept of a very long lasting single authoritarian dictator despite having read 85% of the Communist Manifesto.  Prove it to me or shut up.  I've supplied sources for everything I've pointed out.  You've yet to provide sources for anything.

2) Again, who's everyone?  Last time I checked the French Commune wasn't mob rule, it was a representative democracy.  It was not a direct democracy, as every single French citizen was not able to participate.  Regardless, it was a type of democracy, NOT the kind of revolutionary mob rule that the Communist Manifesto predicts as a necessary intermediate step.  I'd equate the dictatorship of the proletariat more to the things that followed the establishment of the Communes (i.e. Storming of the Bastille and Womens' March on Versailles) than any other part of the French Revolution.  Thus, it comes as no surprise that Marx criticized the French Commune, because he saw what came after it rather than the Commune itself as necessary.  It fit the model, but it featured unnecessary parts.

3) If you don't care enough to prove your points, you shouldn't be starting an argument (with rastari) in the first place.

 

Edit: What?  Your side is arguing that Marx criticized the French Commune but acknowledge a quote by him that treats it as a model transition from one form of government to communism?  What the hell am I supposed to be countering?  Point 2 looks unnecessary now.



Kasz216 on 23 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
 

1) Unless I'm remembering wrong the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step between other forms of government and Communism.  It's not permanent.

2) How is mob rule equatable to democracy?  You have someone backed by the people shouting "Let's go do shit!" and peopled roaring in agreement.  That's not exactly democracy, and Communism itself certainly isn't.  Democracy /= everyone is equal under the law.

3) I'm not responsible for finding evidence to back up your claims.  That's your responsibility.  Find me a source where he talks about the need for a single dictator and I'll believe you.

1) It's not permanent but it needs to last for a LONG time.

2) The "mob rule" everyone equates it to is the French Commune. Which wasn't mob rule.  It was a direct democracy.

3) I'll pass.  I don't care enough about proving it to you to pour through the entirity of his works again.

1) Again, I've never heard of this concept of a very long lasting single authoritarian dictator despite having read 85% of the Communist Manifesto.  Prove it to me or shut up.  I've supplied sources for everything I've pointed out.  You've yet to provide sources for anything.

2) Again, who's everyone?  Last time I checked the French Commune wasn't mob rule, it was a representative democracy.  It was not a direct democracy, as every single French citizen was not able to participate.  Regardless, it was a type of democracy, NOT the kind of revolutionary mob rule that the Communist Manifesto predicts as a necessary intermediate step.  I'd equate the dictatorship of the proletariat more to the things that followed the establishment of the Communes (i.e. Storming of the Bastille and Womens' March on Versailles) than any other part of the French Revolution.  Thus, it comes as no surprise that Marx criticized the French Commune, because he saw what came after it rather than the Commune itself as necessary.  It fit the model, but it featured unnecessary parts.

3) If you don't care enough to prove your points, you shouldn't be starting an argument (with rastari) in the first place.

1) Read 100% of it then.

2) Everyone is... everyone who thinks what you think.   Read the Wikipedia link you suplied.

3) You haven't cared enough to prove your points outside of a basic looking at wikipedia...  and are claiming what they said doesn't fit your arguement.  I've provided actual quotes from the work... you want even more quotes... without refuting the original.  Hell, you haven't cared enough to even read the entirity of what you are argueing about.  If there is anyone not fufilling their obligation of the arguement, it's you.

Afterall you are asking me to dig through dozens of letters and pamphlets... and you haven't even read one work to compeltion.



greenmedic88 on 23 April 2010

<a href="http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/kitsune109/?action=view&current=pcgraphpngphp.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/kitsune109/pcgraphpngphp.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>



Final-Fan on 23 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
Edit: What?  Your side is arguing that Marx criticized the French Commune but acknowledge a quote by him that treats it as a model transition from one form of government to communism?  What the hell am I supposed to be countering?  Point 2 looks unnecessary now.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that the quote was by Engels, not Marx.  And Kasz216 has said that "[Marx] and Engles were very different."  There is no contradiction. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!